Many SWAT teams are now using helmet mounted cameras for evidenciary purposes and to aid in debrief.

January 23rd, 2011, 02:10 PM

OPFOR

Quote:

Originally Posted by paramedic70002

Are we watching the same video?

Apparently not. The last time I checked, human beings couldn't teleport. Therefore, the subject somehow managed to move himself from in his bedroom, around a corner, and begin to move down the hall. When he is shot, he stops, and crumples backwards. There are clear commands to "freeze" and "get on the gr..." in the instant before his is shot; I don't know how many verbal commands you expect to give a guy that is feet away and advancing with a weapon raised...

January 23rd, 2011, 02:25 PM

usmc3169

Thank you OPFOR for bringing some sanity to this discussion. He was a Meth user at the least, they are THE most dangerous form of druggy. Meth makes them extremely paranoid and hyper, very task oriented. They had good enough information to get a no knock warrant - those are not given out like candy, it generally takes some pretty serious facts justifying why it needs to be no knock. It does not matter if it was a golf club or a sword, they are both deadly instruments. If some one APPEARS to be advancing on me when I have several SWAT officers around me and guns drawn and he has a weapon out.... well he is gonna probably get shot. Sorry I dont have a lot of sympathy for this idiot.

January 23rd, 2011, 10:42 PM

mcp1810

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10thmtn

As far as destroying evidence goes or worrying about the suspect arming himself - you do a stake out, and wait for the guy to come out. You arrest him on the street, by surprise, and then you are free to enter the house and gather all the evidence your warrant entitles you to look for. The police tried this - but pulled over the wrong guy. Instead of waiting for the right guy to come out, they instead decided on the entry.

I am curious as to how much time passed between the stop and the entry. While 10thmtn's stake out plan could work fine in some situations, it is problematic for others. If the people that were pulled over suspect at all that it is anything other than a straight up ran the stop sign traffic stop they can easily call the suspect and tip him off. As they note in the article meth dissolves easily, so how much time do you want to give they guy to destroy the evidence? I am not saying this was perfect, but as I see it once they made the stop they were committed.

In my perfect world they would have done the whole briefing and planned the operation as an entry from the get go. If the guy is in the car great, if not signal the entry team to hit the door before releasing the guy from the stop. But of course in my perfect world I don't have to worry about overtime pay or anything like that so I can have as many cops as I want sitting around waiting for him to leave the house. Would my plan have worked any better? Don't know. But for the guy with the golf club I don't think mine would have been any worse.

As far as the shooting itself, I have no problem with it. This is what can happen when one charges blindly into a situation. If he had taken a quick peek around the corner before coming out with a golf club he may still be alive. He would at least have had a chance to make an informed decision if what was coming through the door was something was something he wanted to engage.

January 23rd, 2011, 10:58 PM

RKM

I'd hate to be on the jury for this one. I can see valid point on both sides.

January 23rd, 2011, 11:45 PM

Saber

Based on the video, the guy clearly reacted to a threat at the door although I’m not sure he had any idea it was the cops. The yelling chorus of the boys in blue seems hardly audible. Oh well, the law said it was a clean shoot, so game on...

January 24th, 2011, 12:13 AM

tbrenke

Quote:

Originally Posted by giaodn

You should familiarize yourself with the Tueller Drill then watch the video again and ask if you're okay with taking a golf club to the face.

Tueller Drill does not apply when your gun is already drawn.

January 24th, 2011, 12:25 AM

CBXMan

"I thought he had a sword"=CYA

January 24th, 2011, 12:51 AM

stevem174

Sad deal for sure. Was this a “good shoot”? No. Was this a justifiable shoot? Yes. I bet the Officer will relive this shoot many times in his head, questioning what he could have done different. I hope he finds peace within himself and doesn’t hesitate next time.

People have suggested that doing a stake out and taking him into custody after he left house would have been better.

Maybe that is true, unless he took off. Then the Officers would have been faced with a high speed pursuit or a possible shoot out in public and all of the dangers to innocent bystanders. We have the luxury of Monday morning QBing from the safeties of our computers.

I am pretty sure that almost everyone here would count a nine iron as a deadly weapon if someone was advancing on you with it.

January 24th, 2011, 08:23 AM

Sticks

Obviously not the best outcome.

The "Get on the ground" stuck me a little like BANG "Stop or I'll shoot!".

Lots of info we don't have, and maybe the LEOs had bad intel on the subject they were serving the warrant on.

Not for me to decide.

January 24th, 2011, 09:53 AM

ksholder

Wow, 7 seconds from kicking the door in till all shots are fired and, based on the camera angle, 2 seconds from seeing the victim to all shots are fired. I did not hear anything other than a confused jumble of voices from the cops, not 1 clear spokesman that could be understood, they were all talking over each other. Because of ones proximity to the camera, you could pick out what he was saying, but I doubt the victim could.

Other observations -

1) The victim had to have heard the cops outside and may or may not have assumed they were burglars. He could not have reacted and grabbed the club and been in the position he was in in the time from the door being kicked in til he was shot.

2) I did not see him advancing on the cops, I saw him at the head of his hall and the cops advancing on him. Yes he had the club in a stike position, but he was not closing the distance to the threat, the threat was closing the distance on him.

3) The cops all had lights on their guns. They do this for the same reason that we carry lights, either flashlights or gun mounted lights - it blinds whoever is lit up. Imagine yourself thinking you had a home invation, a bunch of people you could not see because of their lights are advancing on you and shouting something you can't understand. How would you react?

4) The victim was shot on sight, no warning and no stop the advance by the cops, just see the victim, shoot him 3 times, then cover him and tell him to get on the ground - which at that point he was already anyway. That was the first clear communication with the victim - after he was shot and on the ground. There may have been a garbled half get on the ground before the shooting, but if it was there, it was clearly garbled and certainly did not provide time for any response, positive or otherwise, before the shots rang out.

I agree with Guantes - wrong tool for the job. Further, I do not agree with the concept of no knock raids. Regardless of what the government asserts, they are unconstitutional. A possible exception would be a HRT deployment. Finally, IMHO, this was not a justified shoot regardless of what the system says. The system covers for itself and this is a perfectly good case in point.

I agree that perps should be shown justice, but justice under the law. Violating constitutional rights then blowing someone away because they could not guess who you are and what you wanted them to do before you said it is not justice. This jury will come back pretty quickly and the victim's family will be on easy street. The shooter could face jail time, but the DA will not present that side of the case to the GJ since he has already determined this was a justifiable application of government powers on its subjects.

January 24th, 2011, 10:11 AM

Old School

Excellent post ksholder. You saw and heard what I saw and heard.

January 24th, 2011, 11:13 AM

Frogbones

IMO which isn't much. After watching the video several times, also slowed...this guy was dead (in SWAT's eyes) before they entered the house.

They, already planned to shoot upon ANY type of resistance....which they new would happen because of the way they planned thier entry.

The video dictates it.

January 24th, 2011, 12:41 PM

Guantes

Additional Information - Clarification

This was not, was not, a SWAT team warrant service. The service of this warrant was executed by the Weber-Morgan Narcotics Strike Force. The WMNSF is a multi-agency narcotics taks force.

The officer firing the shots was Sgt Troy Burnette of the Ogdon Police Department.

While this does not change the results of the incident, it is important relative to the negative view of warrant service using SWAT units. When incidents of a controversial nature occur it is important that accurate information is available for valid evaluation of the incident and the parties involved.

January 24th, 2011, 12:55 PM

ksholder

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guantes

Additional Information - Clarification

This was not, was not, a SWAT team warrant service. The service of this warrant was executed by the Weber-Morgan Narcotics Strike Force. The WMNSF is a multi-agency narcotics taks force.

The officer firing the shots was Sgt Troy Burnette of the Ogdon Police Department.

While this does not change the results of the incident, it is important relative to the negative view of warrant service using SWAT units. When incidents of a controversial nature occur it is important that accurate information is available for valid evaluation of the incident and the parties involved.

Guantes - thanks for the clarification. I, personally, was not so concerned with the type of unit, but with the tactics and results. The web site you provided asserts that this is a JTF. That adds to the complexity, ego management and training issues. While I certainly want officers to go home to their families at the end of the shift, executing a raid with the ROE (as appears to have been the ROE for this raid) of shoot anything that moves on site is not acceptable. I am just restating my position, I do not take your post as asserting a contrary position, you were simply clarifying the type of unit involved.